On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:13:00AM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 19.08.22 um 03:41 schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim: > > Quick question (applies to drgn, not libkdumpfile) - if the tarball > > contains some m4 rules copied verbatim from autotools, do I have to list > > them in d/copyright? > > The answer is tricky: Per Debian Policy you have to include every license that appears. > You do not have to include the Copyright statements because the files are not a compiled part of the binary. > > Legally, it is okay to leave the licenses out of d/copyright and I have > never seen ftpmaster reject a package because the FSF All Permissive License > was missing. I do not think there is an official exception for it but there > is certainly an unwritten exception. > > So the official answer is: include them. The unofficial answer is: it is okay not to. > Got it, thanks! So if a unique license appears in the files that are not a compiled part, the argument in favor of listing it in d/copyright gets stronger, but if the license is the same and only the copyright is different I'll probably lean towards skipping unless someone insists they are included. I fixed libkdumpfile last night per your feedback, but there's a minor update just uploaded (2022-08-19 16:05) that refreshed the patches - one replaced by the upstream commit fixing a bug I reported, the other is now merged so I updated the header to include the fixed commit. Best, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature